MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081009749 · doi:10.1080/09513590.2020.1807931

The biochemical pregnancy loss rate remains stable up irrespective of age and differs in pattern from clinical miscarriages

2020· article· en· W3081009749 on OpenAlexaff
Michael H. Dahan, Atif Zeadna, Daniel Dahan, Weon‐Young Son, Naama Steiner

Bibliographic record

VenueGynecological Endocrinology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive System and Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsMcGill Genome CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMiscarriagePregnancyObstetricsAdvanced maternal agePregnancy rateAneuploidyGynecologyRetrospective cohort studyFetusInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: As women age, the increasing rate of aneuploidy lead to an augmentation in the incidence of clinical miscarriages. It was anticipated that biochemical pregnancy rates would also rise with maternal age. However, no study has previously evaluated the effect of maternal age on biochemical pregnancy rates. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 2177 subjects who underwent single embryo transfer (SET) as part of a fresh or thawed IVF cycle were recruited from 2008 through 2012, resulting in 952 pregnancies. Data was stratified for age and compared using analysis of variance (continuous data) and chi-squared tests (categorical data). RESULTS: = .72) (Age 21-30 y: 10.7%, Age 31-35 y:9.8%, Age 36-40y:11.5%, Age 41-42 y:13.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Biochemical pregnancy loss rate did not increase as a function of age in women 21 to 42 years of age.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGynecological EndocrinologySame topicReproductive System and PregnancyFrench-language works237,207